MLB Regular Season 22: The Thread

[TrueYankee26]

Pujols' debut was in April 2, 2001

Tom Brady's was November 23, 2000

 

Incredible the longevity of Brady's career but let's not forget Pujols.

[Shumway]

8 minutes ago, TrueYankee26 said:

Pujols' debut was in April 2, 2001

Tom Brady's was November 23, 2000

 

Incredible the longevity of Brady's career but let's not forget Pujols.

No disrespect to Albert (okay, maybe a little), but Brady remained an elite quarterback in the league, whereas Pujols has barely been a replacement level player for the better part of a decade. 

[DEAD!]

7 hours ago, Shumway said:

No disrespect to Albert (okay, maybe a little), but Brady remained an elite quarterback in the league, whereas Pujols has barely been a replacement level player for the better part of a decade. 

...and Brady had better teammates

(talent wise, of course) 

[TrueYankee26]

Speaking of Pujols, he pitched the 9th inning and closed out the win over the Giants though he gave up a pair of homers

 

 

[Ferdinand Cesarano]

22 hours ago, Sec19Row53 said:

Not exactly new. Your Yankees lost 4-0 throwing a no-no in 1990.

 

Right!  That game was pivotal in that it changed the record books.   After the 1990 season, the official definition of what constutes a no-hitter was tightened up, and several games that had previously been credited were removed from the list.

The biggest thing that the new rule stated is that, in order to get credit for a no-hitter, the pitcher has to pitch nine innings, and his team has to win the game.  Both of these planks worked to remove Hawkins's game from the list. 

Another revision stated explicitly that the pitcher has to have started the game.  This was always the case, of course; but the explicit revision removed a famous game that had appeared on the no-hitter list with an asterisk.  In 1917, Babe Ruth started a game for the Red Sox, walked the first Washington hitter, and then was ejected for arguing with the umpire.  Ernie Shore relieved Ruth. The hitter who had walked was caught stealing, and then Shore retired the next 26 men. This remains a combined perfect game and a combined no-hitter; but for decades it appeared, with an asterisk, on the lists of individual no-hitters and perfect games.

 

The bit about the team having to win the game removed another longstanding asterisked entrant on the lists of no-hitters and perfect games.  In 1959, Harvey Haddix of the Pirates threw 12 perfect innings against the Braves, before finally giving up a hit in the 13th inning, and going on to lose the game.  That game receives no recognition of any kind after the 1990 revisions.
 

Finally, the rule about having to pitch nine innings removed the rain-shortened five-inning perfect game that the Expos' David Palmer threw in 1981.   (Left unanswered is the question of how the rules would handle a no-hitter or a perfect game in a scheduled seven-inning game, as opposed to a rain-shortened seven-inning game.)

Hawkins, after his loss, made a comment to the effect that, while he hated to lose, "they can't take the no-hitter away from me". How wrong he was.  His feat was officially acknowledged as a no-hitter for only a few months before they did indeed take that distinction away from him.  At least Palmer, Haddix, and Shore got to be on the list for decades.
 

 

21 hours ago, Cujo said:

A TRUE YANKEE would know this.

 

21 hours ago, TrueYankee26 said:

Well I was born in 1991 so  

 

Because baseball fans in particular are characterised by their knowledge of history, a baseball fan is not entitled to use the excuse "it was before my time" for significant historical events.  (Though I admit that I, having retired from current baseball after 1996 and having become a purely historical fan, am very willing to rely on the excuse "it was after my time".)

 

[Cujo]

28 minutes ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

Because baseball fans in particular are characterised by their knowledge of history, a baseball fan is not entitled to use the excuse "it was before my time" for significant historical events.  (Though I admit that I, having retired from current baseball after 1996 and having become a purely historical fan, am very willing to rely on the excuse "it was after my time".)

 

Petition to have @TrueYankee26's handle changed to SemiYankee26.

[McCall]

15 hours ago, Cujo said:

 

Petition to have @TrueYankee26's handle changed to SemiYankee26.

TrueRedSox26

[ManillaToad]

18 hours ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

The biggest thing that the new rule stated is that, in order to get credit for a no-hitter, the pitcher has to pitch nine innings, and his team has to win the game. 

 

You don't have to win the game. Ken Johnson in 1964  and the Orioles' combined no-no in 1967 are both officially no-hitters despite those pitchers losing.

 

18 hours ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

Ernie Shore relieved Ruth. The hitter who had walked was caught stealing, and then Shore retired the next 26 men. This remains a combined perfect game and a combined no-hitter

 

It's just a combined no-hitter, since a batter reached based.

 

18 hours ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

(Left unanswered is the question of how the rules would handle a no-hitter or a perfect game in a scheduled seven-inning game, as opposed to a rain-shortened seven-inning game.)

 

Bumgarner gave up no hits in a 7-inning clowngame last year and it isn't counted as an official no-hitter

[Ferdinand Cesarano]

1 hour ago, ManillaToad said:

You don't have to win the game. Ken Johnson in 1964  and the Orioles' combined no-no in 1967 are both officially no-hitters despite those pitchers losing.

 

Thank you for the correction.

 

1 hour ago, ManillaToad said:

19 hours ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

Ernie Shore relieved Ruth. The hitter who had walked was caught stealing, and then Shore retired the next 26 men. This remains a combined perfect game and a combined no-hitter

 

It's just a combined no-hitter, since a batter reached based.

 

Ah, right you are: it's not a combined perfect game.

 

However, believe it or not, this game did formerly appear on the list of perfect games, credited to Shore (with the asterisk).

 

 

1 hour ago, ManillaToad said:

Bumgarner gave up no hits in a 7-inning clowngame last year and it isn't counted as an official no-hitter

 

How about that!  Well, there's an example of a case where I take the excuse "it's after my time".  Thanks for this information.

 

[DEAD!]

4 hours ago, McCall said:

TrueRedSox26

TrueRedSox7

[tp49]

In all fairness I've been trying to forget Andy Hawkins (and Ed Whitson too) since the early 90's.

[Ferdinand Cesarano]

18 hours ago, tp49 said:

In all fairness I've been trying to forget Andy Hawkins (and Ed Whitson too) since the early 90's.

 

I will always love Ed Whitson because he gave Billy Martin what he had long deserved.

[heavybass]

You have to be some sort of scammy lying git to steal from the Yankees.... financial issues or not.

[Ferdinand Cesarano]

14 hours ago, heavybass said:

You have to be some sort of scammy lying git to steal from the Yankees.... financial issues or not.

Maybe he was doing a tribute to Ruben Rivera.

[DEAD!]

16 hours ago, heavybass said:

You have to be some sort of scammy lying git to steal from the Yankees.... financial issues or not.

To be fair, the Yankees have, so far, allowed the fewest stolen bases per game 

https://www.teamrankings.com/mlb/stat/opponent-stolen-bases-per-game

[Dynasty]

https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/33944806/baltimore-orioles-star-trey-mancini-agrees-aaron-judge-criticism-camden-yards-dimensions-says-no-hitters-included

 

I can only say "tough sh!t," to be honest.

[Dilbert]

Reds sweep the Indian/Guardians for the first time ever in Cleveland. It was only a 2 game sweep but it counts.

[Kramerica Industries]

On 5/18/2022 at 6:16 PM, heavybass said:

You have to be some sort of scammy lying git to steal from the Yankees.... financial issues or not.

 

George Steinbrenner had been accusing team employees of stealing equipment going back at least as far as 1995. It took 27 years but I'm glad they finally got to the bottom of this.

[Crabcake]

This is the dumbest thing I’ve seen in a while. The #1 prospect gets called up, a kid gets his dream realized, and you use that opportunity to take a pot shot at an organization over a jersey number?? Even if Moose wanted his jersey retired there’s about 5 other Orioles legends who didn’t skip town to a division rival that would deserve it over him. The O’s have sucked for the last 7 years. Can we just enjoy today, Buster? Or are we not allowed to do that since it would glorifying our “tank”? (Notwithstanding the fact that tanking is essentially the only way for a small market team to rebuild themselves, especially in the AL East, and all signs point to the O’s doing it the right way and actually trying to pick their moment to compete instead of a perpetual rebuild.)
 

 

[Ferdinand Cesarano]

7 hours ago, Crabcake said:

The #1 prospect gets called up, a kid gets his dream realized, and you use that opportunity to take a pot shot at an organization over a jersey number??

 

Very, very bad take.

 

First of all, as a general point, criticism over the retiring or non-retiring of a uniform number is perfectly valid. This type of commentary takes nothing away from the current player.

 

Secondly, as to this specific matter, the Orioles absolutely should retire Mussina's number. Mussina's having later played for the Yankees (or any other team) is completely irrelevant.  Mussina deserves this honour from the Orioles, just as Dwight Gooden deserves it from the Mets.

 

Olney is right to bring this to our attention.